Eric Schmidt on Net Neutrality

GillBates0 writes "Google's CEO Eric Schmidt has written an open letter to the Google user community asking them to speak out on the issue of net neutrality. The official Google Blog has a blurb on this as well. From the letter: 'In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet ... Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.'"

Comments

Please read the letter...

[kabir]

It's short and contains links and phone numbers which can be used to speak out to congress which is going to be way more effective than bitching on Slashdot.

Article by Lawrence Lessig..

[dracken]

... In Washingtonpost. To quote the first few lines Congress is about to cast a historic vote on the future of the Internet. It will decide whether the Internet remains a free and open technology fostering innovation, economic growth and democratic communication, or instead becomes the property of cable and phone companies that can put toll booths at every on-ramp and exit on the information superhighway.

At the center of the debate is the most important public policy you've probably never heard of: "network neutrality."

Good question...

[GillBates0]

...and I used to find it a little confusing as well, till I read some of the documents on that link.

"Net Neutrality" is used to describe the notion that the network should be neutral and unbiased to all all traffic. That is, an ISP should not be partial towards or throttle traffic just because it may not be in their best interests to forward it.

As usual, the Wikipedia entry on Net Neutrality is pretty informative. The opening line reads: "Network neutrality is the ideal that network designs and operators should not discriminate between network applications." which sums up the issue pretty neatly.

Hence "Net Neutrality" is a _good_ thing, but it is confusing when people refer to the "Net Neutrality Bill" because what the bill actually proposes is the opposite, which often seems to be the case nowadays...kinda like Doublespeak.

Did you write your congressmen?

[Mark McGann]

Slashdot is a friendly crowd in terms of google's view that NetNeutrality is important.

So lets say your the one of those friendlies reading this posting. You're sitting there thinking to yourself yeah I like this idea of Net Neutrality, and I think congress should support Net Neutrality. Now ask yourself this, did your write your congressman? .

If your answer is yes stop reading this post now.

So why haven't you? Sure it'd be best to write a real letter, and bravo if you decide to do that. But if, like me, you're just too damned lazy, submit and electronic carbon copy one that's linked from the article. It's really not that hard, and these things really do work if enough people submit them. Just ask the Parents Television Council, the nice people who convinced the FCC to fine any broadcaster who doesn't conform to their censorship standards. They did that by setting up a nice simple website to send electronic complaints to the FCC with a few clicks.

Write your damned congressman!

-Mark

Re:Did you write your congressmen?

[oahazmatt]

I wrote my congressman.

Here is the response, minus a closing paragraph not relating to the body:

Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I appreciate the
time you took to contact my office on this important issue and welcome
the opportunity to respond.

Introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R - TX), H.R. 5252, the
Communications Opportunity , Promotion , and Enhancement Act of 2006
(COPE), amends the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and contains several
provisions that will lower cable prices, increase competition, and
provide safeguards for consumers. However, there have been many
misleading conceptions about the COPE Act written in the media , and I
wanted to take the time to shed some light on the mistruths some liberal
groups are spreading.

H.R. 5252 establishes the option of a national franchise for cable
companies, which is a substitute for the current system of locally
negotiated contracts. Under the bill, a cable company could apply to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a national franchise and
then offer its services to consumers regardless of geographic location.
Such a system is more efficient than the current one, as a cable company
would not have to negotiate with numerous local jurisdictions, slow ing
deployment of cable service and increas ing prices for the consumer.
Local governments will still however receive franchise fees just as they
do today. Moreover, by creating national franchises, more cable
companies will be in direct competition with one another.

As we move forward in the telecommunications era, companies are offering
more services than just basic cable. Cable and telecom companies alike
now offer broadband service, voice over IP (VOIP), and other digital
services. Under COPE, no company can force consumers to buy VOIP or
broadband service as a precondition for buying other services from the
company.

However, the most often misunderstood section of H.R. 5252 is the
"network neutrality" provision, which is the principle that a consumer
has equal access to all sites. The bill directs the administrator of the
FCC not to make any rule or law that would establish Internet network
neutrality. However, the term "network neutrality" is misleading.

The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites
are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use
large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet.
Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large
amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to
the consumer. These Internet sites obviously oppose such a move, as it
forces them to pay for using increased bandwidth. Accordingly, these
same Internet sites are aggressively lobbying Congress, and liberal
special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner
guaranteed access to Internet services. Coupled with these special
interest groups, Internet website lobbyists are distorting the picture
by calling pay-for-performance fees a punishment to small business
websites, using the term "network neutrality" as the hands off approach,
when in fact their changes would be the first major government
regulation of the Internet. Moreover, the changes that telephone and
cable companies would like to implement consist of large amounts of
bandwidth that a typical small business website would be extremely
unlikely to use.

America is the most industrialized nation in the world, but is ranked 16
th in broadband deployment. Many contend this is due to the lack of
competition among carriers that resulted from a Federal Communications
Commission decision during the Clinton Administration. This decision
required carriers to open their lines to all broadband deployment and
prohibited carriers from negotiating and enforcing contracts.
Essentially, this ill-advised decision removed competit

Re:What's the bill #?

[Odonian]

It's HR 5273. Here's the text of the bill, decide for yourself which way to vote I guess:

HR 5273

Saw an editorial in my local paper today

[spun]

It was a little blurb of an editorial, and plenty of people never read the editorials, but it managed to get the point across very clearly, spelling out why this is bad for Internet users, and urging them to contact their representatives.

So, no, it's not just here. Mainstream citizens care about their Internet and will fight against those who would take it away. Remember the Great Modem Tax Scare? It wasn't geeks spreading that myth, it was average citizens. I had to explain to more than one relative that this wasn't true.

I've had more than one non-geek ask me about "this whole net-neutrality thing." I tell them it's a real issue, and suggest that if they want the Internet to remain free, they should do something about it, like write their representatives.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[icejai]

Not totally accurate. They're not paying for speed, they're paying for priority. It's all about the highway's capacity to carry cars and an internet connection's capacity to carry data.

To use your highway analogy correctly, tiered internet would be analagous to giving cars priority access to highways, and forcing other cars to move to the right when a car with priority approaches in the rear view mirror. In the end, you'll end up having highways jammed full with access-paying cars, while those non-paying are stuck on the on-ramps. This way, these network-providers will have their networks traffic-jammed with fee-paying customers without actually adding *any* value whatsoever, which is totally awe$$$ome in the eyes of these network providers/carriers/whatever.

They have a XX-MBit pipe, and they give you a guarantee of your priority in exchange for money.
Of course, people who don't pay have no guarantees for bandwidth at all... which may allow them to "close off lanes" and make the pipes narrower, forcing even more non-paying cars off to the right because hey... access to bandwidth for the non-paying is not guaranteed.

I swear, who comes up with these outrageous schemes.

Re:Something about a beam in one's eye...

[Irish_Samurai]

You sir are an idiot.

Here's a search for Rusty Shackleford. Jawa report is on the first page.

Here's a search for jawa report. Jawa report comes up on the first page.

Here's a search for Jawa Report on GOOGLE NEWS. Second listing.

Here's a search for New Media Journal First listing.

Here's a search for MichNews. It's the first listing.

This is extremely difficult to pull off when you are not in the Google Index.

You have no clue what you are talking about, you are just rehashing some point of view that was fed to you. You did no research on the topic and took your prefered source as truth. The index was not purged, their content just has not been included in some sub-topic aggregation. That's FAR from a "censors mentality."

And since when were blogs and Op-Ed pieces considered news. They are most certainly related, but not the same.

Journalism is slowly being mistaken for Reporting because of the forces exerted by the advertising model. Get your facts straight before you start bringing completely unrelated topics into a discussion about how we are ALL GOING TO GET FUCKED if this goes through. Conservative and Liberal alike.

Maybe I'm Confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but considering all the posts here, I was thinking this was supposed to be an anti-network neutrality bill. I took 5 minutes of my life to read through it, and other than a couple points which seem a little ambiguous to me (4b2 and 4b5A), it looks as though this bill was written to (try to) enforce network neutrality, not the opposite. Now maybe I've misread something, or perhaps I skipped a line by accident, but I can't see how this is a bad thing.

Someone else already linked to it, but I'll do so again with the hopes that before you make a reactionary post, you've read it for yourself.

HR 5252

[programic]

I belive this is HR 5252 (Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006) if anybody cares to write their congressperson regarding it. Additionally, you should mention your support of HR 5273 (Net Netrality Act).

Re:HR 5252

[Stalyn]

Too late. The Markey ammendment to add net neutrality provisions to HR 5252 already failed. The motions to recommit the bill (which means send back to committee) failed too. That pretty much means it is going to pass. The margin of victory was about 100. Unless you can convice 100 representatives in 24 hours, it is going to pass.

The only hope now is the Senate blocks it or votes down their similar bill. And that the Net Neutrality bill is passed in the House. However if they voted down the Markey amendment, it doesn't look so good.